The United States is undergoing a demographic shift in which the white population is aging while the younger generation grows more diverse. Although population estimates predict that white Americans will make up less than 50 percent of the population by 2045, nonwhite public school students already comprise more than 50 percent of the student body. This accelerated shift in the racial and ethnic composition of public schools, coupled with research showing the benefitsto students from having nonwhite teachers, implies an acute need to diversify the teaching profession.

In light of these quickly changing demographics, our new report published through Brookings Mountain West delves into the diversity of the teacher workforce in the Mountain West region. The states in this region (Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah) have experienced rapid population growth and a substantial influx of nonwhite racial and ethnic groups in recent decades. These features put them at the vanguard of demographic change that the nation as a whole will be facing in coming years, and they make the region an interesting case study of teacher diversity—offering lessons to policymakers looking to diversify the workforce in the face of continued demographic change.

Growing racial diversity creates growing demand for teacher diversity

In the report, we use five waves of the Schools and Staffing Survey and the 2016 American Community Survey to plot student and teacher demographic trends from 1993 to 2016 in the Mountain West states. These trends show how the diversity in the teacher workforce has evolved slowly as the student population has changed more rapidly.

Figure 1: Student and teacher demographics in the Mountain West

The charts in the top row of Figure 1 show that in all five states the share of nonwhite students, particularly Hispanics, has increased over the past 20-plus years. Both the initial share of Hispanic students and their growth rate varies by state. For example, the share of Hispanic students in New Mexico has always been large, accounting for nearly half of all students in 1993, and the growth of this group’s share has been positive but modest over the last 25 years. Meanwhile, Hispanic students in Nevada accounted for less than 20 percent of students in 1993, and this subgroup has seen dramatic growth since then, now constituting nearly 50 percent of all students.

Looking now at the share of nonwhite teachers across the bottom of Figure 1, we again see different trends arising across states. Due to the adult population being much more white than the rising generation of children under 18, it is not surprising that the teacher workforce is more white than the student body they serve in each of the five states. The trends presented here show that in all states nonwhite teachers are a scarce resource. However, some states are performing better on teacher diversity than others. While New Mexico and Arizona are leading the region, Colorado, Nevada, and Utah are struggling to keep pace with changes in the student population.

Next, we explore how the Mountain West states are doing in their recruitment and retention of nonwhite teachers in comparison to white applicants and the rest of the U.S. We find two noteworthy ways in which the Mountain West is clearly lagging behind.

First, a major source of diverse teachers in the rest of the U.S. is growing less racially diverse in Mountain West states. Alternative certification programs have been documented as a key source for attracting nonwhite and male applicants into the profession; however, we find that states in the Mountain West are diverging from this general pattern. Figure 2 shows the percentage of novice teachers (with three or fewer years of experience) who have entered teaching through a non-traditional route.

Nonwhite entry rates through alternative certification sit notably lower in the Mountain West states than in the rest of the U.S. In 2015, 20 percent of nonwhite novice teachers in the Mountain West enter the profession through non-traditional pathways, while 40 percent did in the rest of the country. Moreover, alternative entry rates in these states have declined among minorities and increased among whites such that their relative positions have reversed by 2015. By comparison, these entry rates are essentially flat in the rest of the U.S. for the eight-year span of these surveys. It is unclear why this source of racial diversity in the rest of the U.S. is becoming less diverse in the Mountain West states, but these trends warrant closer scrutiny if states intend to make progress toward parity in the region.

Second, we find evidence that nonwhite teachers leave Mountain West schools at elevated rates. In Figure 3 we show that the rate at which nonwhite teachers in the region left the profession in the 2012-13 school year is nearly three times higher than the one observed among both white teachers in the region and nonwhite teachers in the rest of the U.S. Though not pictured here, it’s worth noting that rates of moving between schools is equal for nonwhite teachers in both the Mountain West and the rest of the U.S. (11 percent). Thus, the high attrition rate observed in the Mountain West is not countered with lower mobility across schools and appears to be excessively high attrition unique to the region.

Figure 3: Percent of teachers who leave the profession

We have previously documented that attrition rates for nonwhite teachers are higher than attrition rates for white teachers in the U.S. Figure 3 suggests that attrition gaps in the Mountain West region alone may be responsible for these nationwide gaps. Whether it is creating more supportive work environments for nonwhite teachers, paying teachers in high-need schools more (which will benefit the disproportionately nonwhite teachers in them), or any other number of strategies, something clearly must be done to counter the hemorrhaging of nonwhite teachers from Mountain West classrooms.

Finally, though the demographic shifts in the Mountain West region are more acute than those observed in most other states, they are not unique to the region. Indeed, we expect that eventually most states in the rest of the country will face similar demographic transitions in their populations, though perhaps on a slower timeline. As a result, states across the country will need to work through multiple avenues if they seek to not simply keep pace with student diversity, but also intend to move closer to racial parity between teachers and students.

]]>
By Michael Hansen, Diana Quintero
The United States is undergoing a demographic shift in which the white population is aging while the younger generation grows more diverse. Although population estimates predict that white Americans will make up less than 50 percent of the population by 2045, nonwhite public school students already comprise more than 50 percent of the student body. This accelerated shift in the racial and ethnic composition of public schools, coupled with research showing the benefits to students from having nonwhite teachers, implies an acute need to diversify the teaching profession.
In light of these quickly changing demographics, our new report published through Brookings Mountain West delves into the diversity of the teacher workforce in the Mountain West region. The states in this region (Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah) have experienced rapid population growth and a substantial influx of nonwhite racial and ethnic groups in recent decades. These features put them at the vanguard of demographic change that the nation as a whole will be facing in coming years, and they make the region an interesting case study of teacher diversity—offering lessons to policymakers looking to diversify the workforce in the face of continued demographic change.
Growing racial diversity creates growing demand for teacher diversity
In the report, we use five waves of the Schools and Staffing Survey and the 2016 American Community Survey to plot student and teacher demographic trends from 1993 to 2016 in the Mountain West states. These trends show how the diversity in the teacher workforce has evolved slowly as the student population has changed more rapidly.
Figure 1: Student and teacher demographics in the Mountain West
The charts in the top row of Figure 1 show that in all five states the share of nonwhite students, particularly Hispanics, has increased over the past 20-plus years. Both the initial share of Hispanic students and their growth rate varies by state. For example, the share of Hispanic students in New Mexico has always been large, accounting for nearly half of all students in 1993, and the growth of this group’s share has been positive but modest over the last 25 years. Meanwhile, Hispanic students in Nevada accounted for less than 20 percent of students in 1993, and this subgroup has seen dramatic growth since then, now constituting nearly 50 percent of all students.
Looking now at the share of nonwhite teachers across the bottom of Figure 1, we again see different trends arising across states. Due to the adult population being much more white than the rising generation of children under 18, it is not surprising that the teacher workforce is more white than the student body they serve in each of the five states. The trends presented here show that in all states nonwhite teachers are a scarce resource. However, some states are performing better on teacher diversity than others. While New Mexico and Arizona are leading the region, Colorado, Nevada, and Utah are struggling to keep pace with changes in the student population.
Next, we explore how the Mountain West states are doing in their recruitment and retention of nonwhite teachers in comparison to white applicants and the rest of the U.S. We find two noteworthy ways in which the Mountain West is clearly lagging behind.
First, a major source of diverse teachers in the rest of the U.S. is growing less racially diverse in Mountain West states. Alternative certification programs have been documented as a key source for attracting nonwhite and male applicants into the profession; however, we find that states in the Mountain West are diverging from this general pattern. Figure 2 shows the percentage of novice teachers (with three or fewer years of experience) who have entered teaching through a non-traditional route.
Figure 2: Percent of novice teachers entering through non-traditional pathways
Nonwhite entry rates ... By Michael Hansen, Diana Quintero
The United States is undergoing a demographic shift in which the white population is aging while the younger generation grows more diverse. Although population estimates predict that white Americans will make up ... https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2018/12/17/black-white-segregation-edges-downward-since-2000-census-shows/Black-white segregation edges downward since 2000, census showshttp://webfeeds.brookings.edu/~/587953032/0/brookingsrss/topics/raceandethnicity~Blackwhite-segregation-edges-downward-since-census-shows/
Mon, 17 Dec 2018 20:51:25 +0000https://www.brookings.edu/?p=553580

]]>
By William H. Frey

Recently, the U.S. Census Bureau released its 2013-2017 American Community Survey five-year estimates. Those data show that black-white neighborhood segregation varies widely across metropolitan areas, and has declined only modestly since the beginning of this century. Most white residents of large metropolitan areas live in neighborhoods that remain overwhelmingly white, and while black neighborhoods have become more diverse, this is largely due to an increase in Hispanic rather than white residents.

Black-white segregation remains high in northern metropolitan areas

Segregation levels between blacks and whites within metropolitan areas were very high through the middle part of the 20th century. After the passage of the 1968 Fair Housing Act, black-white segregation began to decline, especially in growing parts of the country like Atlanta and Dallas to which blacks were relocating, where they faced less housing discrimination than in the past.

By the early 2000s, the highest levels of segregation continued to exist in northern metro areas where black population growth had levelled off and new development was sparse (Table 1). (The segregation index shown here varies from values of 0—complete integration—to 100—complete segregation).[1] Even in 2000, three metro areas had segregation indices exceeding 80, and nine more registered indices over 70. In metro areas like Detroit, Milwaukee, and New York, black populations tended to remain more concentrated in central cities, entrenched residential patterns persisted in contrast to those in growing parts of the South and the West.

By the 2013-2017 period, these areas still ranked among the most segregated, though segregation levels declined in each since 2000. Even so, at least three in four black residents in Milwaukee, New York, and Chicago would need to relocate in order to live in fully integrated neighborhoods with whites. In another four areas—Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, and St. Louis—seven in ten blacks would have to relocate to live in a completely integrated neighborhood with whites.

These highly segregated areas, however, do not tell the full story. Black-white segregation levels vary greatly across the 51 major metropolitan areas with populations of at least 1 million, with Las Vegas registering the lowest value at just under 40 (Map 1) (download Table A). In 19 of these areas, segregation values are in the 60s, including a mix of large coastal areas (e.g. Boston, Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., Miami, Los Angeles, and San Francisco) and a smattering of areas in the nation’s interior. In 16 metro areas, segregation values are in the 50s, including Sun Belt growth centers such as Atlanta, Dallas, Tampa, and Charlotte, N.C. The nine areas that exhibit values below 50 include several other Southern migration magnets (e.g., Raleigh, N.C., Austin, Texas, and San Antonio) along with a few Western metros (e.g., Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Riverside, Calif.).

Black-white segregation fell in most metro areas since 2000

Overall, in 45 of these 51 metro areas black-white segregation has declined since 2000. Most only achieved modest reductions of 1 to 4 points. Yet 16 areas did show declines of 5 points or more. Detroit led the way with a decline of nearly 12 points, and other Midwestern and Northern metro areas including Kansas City, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Chicago, Buffalo, Cleveland, and Minneapolis also posted large drops in segregation. Southern and Western metro areas with marked drops in segregation included Tampa, Fla., Louisville, Ken., Orlando, Fla., Houston, Memphis, Tenn., Atlanta, New Orleans, and Miami. Many of the latter areas registered noticeable black population gains from 2000 to 2017, and in most areas that experienced neighborhood segregation declines, black suburbanization facilitated greater integration.

While modest and widespread segregation decline continues an earlier trend, segregation levels greater than 50, which most areas exhibit, are still high by most standards.

Notwithstanding the significant progress in some metro areas, the average segregation level among these 51 places fell only modestly, from 62.8 in 2000 to 59.4 in 2013-2017. While this modest and widespread segregation decline continues an earlier trend, segregation levels greater than 50, which most areas exhibit, are still high by most standards.

Hispanics are making white and black neighborhoods more racially diverse

Another way to examine shifts in segregation is to look at the racial profiles of neighborhoods where the average white or black resident lives.[2]

In 2013-2017, the average white resident of the nation’s 100 largest metropolitan areas lived in a neighborhood that was 72 percent white. That white share declined from 79 percent in 2000. On average, whites were exposed to less racial diversity than existed in these metropolitan areas overall, which were 64 percent white in 2000 and 55 percent white in 2013-2017. Much of the increase in white exposure to non-whites was attributable to a rise in Hispanic neighbors. The average white resident’s neighborhood was 12.2 percent Hispanic in 2013-17, up from 8.5 percent Hispanic in 2000. There were smaller increases in these neighborhoods for blacks, Asians, and other nonwhite racial groups.

This pattern of increased white exposure to non-white groups was consistent across metropolitan areas. In each of the 51 major metro areas, the average white resident lived in a neighborhood that was less white in 2013-2017 than in 2000 (download Table B). The largest shifts toward more diverse white resident neighborhoods—where the white exposure index dropped at least 10 percentage points—occurred in metro areas with growing Hispanic, black, and Asian populations, including Las Vegas, Orlando, Riverside, Miami, San Jose, Atlanta, Houston, Tampa, and Dallas. Clearly, the increased diversity in white resident neighborhoods is related to the growth and in-migration, metropolitan-wide, of other racial groups.

The overall trend toward greater neighborhood diversity occurred for blacks as well. (Figure 1). The average black resident of the 100 largest metro areas lived in a neighborhood that was 45 percent black in 2013-2017, down from 52 percent in 2000. (Blacks comprised 14 percent of all large metropolitan residents in both years.) Yet the white population share of that neighborhood remained almost exactly the same as in 2000. The increased diversity was mainly attributable to Hispanics, who comprised 17 percent of the average black resident’s neighborhood in 2013-2017, up from 12 percent in 2000.

This trend, too, was fairly pervasive across individual metropolitan areas, particularly in the 10 metro areas with largest black populations (download Table C). In most of these places (except Detroit and Chicago), much of the increased neighborhood diversity for blacks came from increasing numbers of Hispanics and other nonwhite racial groups. In Washington, D.C., for instance, the average black resident’s neighborhood saw its black population share drop from 58 percent to 54 percent, its white population share drop from 28 percent to 25 percent, and its Hispanic population share rise from 8 percent to 12 percent.

This analysis shows that black-white neighborhood segregation continued to decline pervasively, albeit modestly, between 2000 and the mid 2010-2020 decade. Significant regional differences persist in segregation levels and trends, emphasizing the value of a metropolitan view on the dynamics that contribute to—and inhibit—greater racial integration in American society.

1 Segregation levels are measured by the index of dissimilarity, which compares the distribution of blacks across a metropolitan area’s neighborhoods (census tracts) with the distribution of whites across those neighborhoods. Values vary from 0 (complete integration) to 100 (complete segregation) where the value indicates the percentage of blacks that would need to change neighborhoods to be distributed the same as whites.

2 The neighborhood (census tract) racial makeup for the average white (or black) resident in the metropolitan area is the weighted average of racial compositions of all neighborhoods in the metropolitan area, where weights represent the sizes of each neighborhood’s white (or black) population. This measure is sometimes referred to as an “exposure” measure.

]]>
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/2018.12.14_metro_Frey_white-black-residents2.jpg?w=272By William H. Frey
Recently, the U.S. Census Bureau released its 2013-2017 American Community Survey five-year estimates. Those data show that black-white neighborhood segregation varies widely across metropolitan areas, and has declined only modestly since the beginning of this century. Most white residents of large metropolitan areas live in neighborhoods that remain overwhelmingly white, and while black neighborhoods have become more diverse, this is largely due to an increase in Hispanic rather than white residents.
Black-white segregation remains high in northern metropolitan areas
Segregation levels between blacks and whites within metropolitan areas were very high through the middle part of the 20th century. After the passage of the 1968 Fair Housing Act, black-white segregation began to decline, especially in growing parts of the country like Atlanta and Dallas to which blacks were relocating, where they faced less housing discrimination than in the past.
By the early 2000s, the highest levels of segregation continued to exist in northern metro areas where black population growth had levelled off and new development was sparse (Table 1). (The segregation index shown here varies from values of 0—complete integration—to 100—complete segregation).[1] Even in 2000, three metro areas had segregation indices exceeding 80, and nine more registered indices over 70. In metro areas like Detroit, Milwaukee, and New York, black populations tended to remain more concentrated in central cities, entrenched residential patterns persisted in contrast to those in growing parts of the South and the West.
By the 2013-2017 period, these areas still ranked among the most segregated, though segregation levels declined in each since 2000. Even so, at least three in four black residents in Milwaukee, New York, and Chicago would need to relocate in order to live in fully integrated neighborhoods with whites. In another four areas—Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, and St. Louis—seven in ten blacks would have to relocate to live in a completely integrated neighborhood with whites.
These highly segregated areas, however, do not tell the full story. Black-white segregation levels vary greatly across the 51 major metropolitan areas with populations of at least 1 million, with Las Vegas registering the lowest value at just under 40 (Map 1) (download Table A). In 19 of these areas, segregation values are in the 60s, including a mix of large coastal areas (e.g. Boston, Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., Miami, Los Angeles, and San Francisco) and a smattering of areas in the nation’s interior. In 16 metro areas, segregation values are in the 50s, including Sun Belt growth centers such as Atlanta, Dallas, Tampa, and Charlotte, N.C. The nine areas that exhibit values below 50 include several other Southern migration magnets (e.g., Raleigh, N.C., Austin, Texas, and San Antonio) along with a few Western metros (e.g., Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Riverside, Calif.).
Black-white segregation fell in most metro areas since 2000
Overall, in 45 of these 51 metro areas black-white segregation has declined since 2000. Most only achieved modest reductions of 1 to 4 points. Yet 16 areas did show declines of 5 points or more. Detroit led the way with a decline of nearly 12 points, and other Midwestern and Northern metro areas including Kansas City, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Chicago, Buffalo, Cleveland, and Minneapolis also posted large drops in segregation. Southern and Western metro areas with marked drops in segregation included Tampa, Fla., Louisville, Ken., Orlando, Fla., Houston, Memphis, Tenn., Atlanta, New Orleans, and Miami. Many of the latter areas registered noticeable black population gains from 2000 to 2017, and in most areas that experienced neighborhood segregation declines, black suburbanization facilitated greater integration.
While modest and widespread segregation decline continues an earlier ... By William H. Frey
Recently, the U.S. Census Bureau released its 2013-2017 American Community Survey five-year estimates. Those data show that black-white neighborhood segregation varies widely across metropolitan areas, and has declined only ... https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2018/12/14/want-more-diverse-teachers-in-more-places-start-with-diverse-principals/Want more diverse teachers in more places? Start with diverse principalshttp://webfeeds.brookings.edu/~/586539404/0/brookingsrss/topics/raceandethnicity~Want-more-diverse-teachers-in-more-places-Start-with-diverse-principals/
Fri, 14 Dec 2018 18:54:31 +0000https://www.brookings.edu/?p=553169

]]>
By Peter Goff

The inequitable distribution of teachers is among the largest and most pervasive challenges facing American schools. A host of studies has shown that stronger teachers—as measured by experience, credentials, education, teaching practices, and student growth—are more likely to be found working with students who are affluent and white. We have found these distributional asymmetries across districts, among schools in the same district, and even within schools.

As illustrated in other posts on the Brown Center Chalkboard, these distributional maladies are also present when we consider characteristics beyond instructional efficacy, such as teacher race. Black and Hispanic teachers are in short supply and are often clustered within a small proportion of schools and districts. Being taught by a diverse group of teachers benefits all students, with the greatest returns manifesting for low-income and Minoritized students.[1]Such benefits extend beyond human capital when we consider the democratic aims of education, where exposure to diverse and wide-ranging ideas, people, and experiences provide the foundation for students to develop the skills of civic discourse. A diverse faculty plays a critical role in supporting multiple goals central to our educational system.

Representative bureaucracy and the distribution of teacher race

Given the established benefits to having a diverse teacher workforce distributed equitably across schools and students, what is causing teachers—particularly Minoritized teachers—to be distributed as they are? A better understanding of the underlying mechanism allows us to select the optimal policy levers to disrupt these trends.

In our newly released paper examining this question, Minseok Yang, Yasmin Rodriguez-Escutia, and I constructed a dataset comprised of more than 70,000 applications (more than 12,000 unique teachers) to about 2,000 teaching vacancies across 352 (of 425) districts in Wisconsin. We used this to gain an unprecedented glimpse into the teacher sorting process that occurs as teachers apply to and move among schools.

We motivated our study by incorporating the theory of representative bureaucracy (based off of Samuel Krislov’s book of the same name), which hypothesizes that people are more likely to work in organizations led and managed by people with whom they may have shared similar life experiences. In schools, this manifests as Minoritized teachers being more likely to work in schools where they see other Minoritized educators in leadership positions. The logic is that Minoritized teachers face unique social and professional pressures; schools with Minoritized leaders are likely to understand these pressures and can provide a teaching environment in which Minoritized teachers can feel safe, supported, and prepared to excel.

Racial matching and job seeking

In our analyses, we sought to determine how teacher-principal race congruence relates to how likely a teacher may be to (a) search for other positions and (b) leave their current school. We next explored if teachers were any more likely to apply to vacancies in schools led by a principal with whom they shared the same race. Lastly, we asked if teacher-principal race congruence was predictive of hiring, conditional on those teachers who applied to the vacancy.

Overall, we found compelling evidence that teacher-principal race congruence is a significant factor that moderates how teachers select the schools in which they work. As shown in the figure below, teachers working with a different-race principal are twice as likely to search for other positions. While teacher-principal race matching reduces search rates among all teachers, this racial congruence effect is most pronounced for pairings of Minoritized teachers and Minoritized principals. And this effect holds even after controlling for multiple teacher characteristics and school factors, including student demographics.

Figure: Marginal probabilities (effects) of searching in the labor market based on principal-teacher race congruence

We also found that teachers were more likely to apply to vacancies where they are of the same race as their potential principal. Here too, the effects are greater for congruence among minority educators than for their white colleagues. Importantly, we found no evidence to support that Minoritized principals are any more or less likely to hire Minoritized teachers than are their white colleagues.

Diverse leadership can help diversify more schools

Our findings provide the strongest empirical evidence to date that the sorting of Minoritized teachers among schools is strongly related to the race of the principal leading the school. This leads us to believe that one strategy to diversify our teaching workforce across more schools is to increase the recruitment and/or promotion of Minoritized school leaders. If representative bureaucracy is underlying Minoritized teachers’ propensity to seek schools led by Minoritized principals, we should also consider how white principals can signal that they are aware of the challenges facing Minoritized teachers, and their school will provide a responsive and prosperous professional culture.

While our work informs strategies to remediate the maldistribution of Minoritized teachers, we cannot ignore that we face a severe shortage of Minoritized teachers. In Wisconsin, for example, 21 percent of all students are black or Hispanic as compared to less than 4 percent of all teachers. 74 percent (!) of Wisconsin schools employ zero teachers of color. Statewide, Minoritized teachers are too few and segregated across districts. This level of segregation merits our attention, yet policies to improve the distribution of Minoritized teachers may produce the unintended consequence of inducing a sense of racial or ethnic isolation. Extreme distributional balance in Wisconsin would result in only one Minoritized teacher per school. Such an event may well accelerate attrition from the field. When considering initiatives to diversify our teachers and principals, we also need to be proactive in our efforts to increase the numbers of Minoritized individuals entering teacher education programs and matriculating into the teaching workforce. Supply challenges are inextricably linked to distributional ones and strategies to address one must be cognizant of the potential impact on the other if we want to move the dial on these critical issues.

The racial diversity of teachers matters to policymakers, and our work shows that the race of principals has a clear impact on teachers’ labor market decisions as well. If we want to create schools that welcome all of our increasingly diverse students, we need to think about racial diversity for school leaders in addition to teachers.

Footnote

[1] Both in our paper and in this article, our use of the term “Minoritized” rather than racial or ethnic minority is intentional. The term “minority” is a neutral term on its face, describing the relative sizes of nonwhite racial and ethnic groups relative to the majority (i.e., whites). Yet, this term is inadequate because it fails to convey that these nonwhite groups have poorer social outcomes not simply because of their size relative to whites, but because they have often been marginalized and mistreated in society. We feel “Minoritized” more accurately conveys the notion that their lower social status is the result of historical oppression. (Back to top)

]]>
By Peter Goff
The inequitable distribution of teachers is among the largest and most pervasive challenges facing American schools. A host of studies has shown that stronger teachers—as measured by experience, credentials, education, teaching practices, and student growth—are more likely to be found working with students who are affluent and white. We have found these distributional asymmetries across districts, among schools in the same district, and even within schools.
As illustrated in other posts on the Brown Center Chalkboard, these distributional maladies are also present when we consider characteristics beyond instructional efficacy, such as teacher race. Black and Hispanic teachers are in short supply and are often clustered within a small proportion of schools and districts. Being taught by a diverse group of teachers benefits all students, with the greatest returns manifesting for low-income and Minoritized students.[1] Such benefits extend beyond human capital when we consider the democratic aims of education, where exposure to diverse and wide-ranging ideas, people, and experiences provide the foundation for students to develop the skills of civic discourse. A diverse faculty plays a critical role in supporting multiple goals central to our educational system.
Representative bureaucracy and the distribution of teacher race
Given the established benefits to having a diverse teacher workforce distributed equitably across schools and students, what is causing teachers—particularly Minoritized teachers—to be distributed as they are? A better understanding of the underlying mechanism allows us to select the optimal policy levers to disrupt these trends.
In our newly released paper examining this question, Minseok Yang, Yasmin Rodriguez-Escutia, and I constructed a dataset comprised of more than 70,000 applications (more than 12,000 unique teachers) to about 2,000 teaching vacancies across 352 (of 425) districts in Wisconsin. We used this to gain an unprecedented glimpse into the teacher sorting process that occurs as teachers apply to and move among schools.
We motivated our study by incorporating the theory of representative bureaucracy (based off of Samuel Krislov’s book of the same name), which hypothesizes that people are more likely to work in organizations led and managed by people with whom they may have shared similar life experiences. In schools, this manifests as Minoritized teachers being more likely to work in schools where they see other Minoritized educators in leadership positions. The logic is that Minoritized teachers face unique social and professional pressures; schools with Minoritized leaders are likely to understand these pressures and can provide a teaching environment in which Minoritized teachers can feel safe, supported, and prepared to excel.
Racial matching and job seeking
In our analyses, we sought to determine how teacher-principal race congruence relates to how likely a teacher may be to (a) search for other positions and (b) leave their current school. We next explored if teachers were any more likely to apply to vacancies in schools led by a principal with whom they shared the same race. Lastly, we asked if teacher-principal race congruence was predictive of hiring, conditional on those teachers who applied to the vacancy.
Overall, we found compelling evidence that teacher-principal race congruence is a significant factor that moderates how teachers select the schools in which they work. As shown in the figure below, teachers working with a different-race principal are twice as likely to search for other positions. While teacher-principal race matching reduces search rates among all teachers, this racial congruence effect is most pronounced for pairings of Minoritized teachers and Minoritized principals. And this effect holds even after controlling for multiple teacher ... By Peter Goff
The inequitable distribution of teachers is among the largest and most pervasive challenges facing American schools. A host of studies has shown that stronger teachers—as measured by experience, credentials, education, teaching ... https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-americas-racist-past-cost-homeowners-156-billion/How America’s racist past cost homeowners $156 billionhttp://webfeeds.brookings.edu/~/584035262/0/brookingsrss/topics/raceandethnicity~How-Americas-racist-past-cost-homeowners-billion/
Thu, 06 Dec 2018 15:04:44 +0000https://www.brookings.edu/?post_type=article&p=551640

Homeownership lies at the heart of the American Dream, representing success, opportunity, and wealth. However, for many of its citizens, America deferred that dream. For much of the 20th century, the devaluing of black lives led to segregation and racist federal housing policy through redlining that shut out chances for black people to purchase homes and build wealth, making it more difficult to start and invest in businesses and afford college tuition. Still, homeownership remains a beacon of hope for all people to gain access to the middle class. Though homeownership rates vary considerably between whites and people of color, it’s typically the largest asset among all people who hold it.

If we can detect how much racism depletes wealth from black homeowners, we can begin to address bigotry principally by giving black homeowners and policymakers a target price for redress. Laws have changed, but the value of assets—buildings, schools, leadership, and land itself—are inextricably linked to the perceptions of black people. And those negative perceptions persist.

Through the prism of the real estate market and homeownership in black neighborhoods, this report attempts to address the question: What is the cost of racial bias? This report seeks to understand how much money majority-black communities are losing in the housing market stemming from racial bias, finding that owner-occupied homes in black neighborhoods are undervalued by $48,000 per home on average, amounting to $156 billion in cumulative losses.

]]>
By Andre M. Perry, Jonathan Rothwell, David Harshbarger
Homeownership lies at the heart of the American Dream, representing success, opportunity, and wealth. However, for many of its citizens, America deferred that dream. For much of the 20th century, the devaluing of black lives led to segregation and racist federal housing policy through redlining that shut out chances for black people to purchase homes and build wealth, making it more difficult to start and invest in businesses and afford college tuition. Still, homeownership remains a beacon of hope for all people to gain access to the middle class. Though homeownership rates vary considerably between whites and people of color, it’s typically the largest asset among all people who hold it.
If we can detect how much racism depletes wealth from black homeowners, we can begin to address bigotry principally by giving black homeowners and policymakers a target price for redress. Laws have changed, but the value of assets—buildings, schools, leadership, and land itself—are inextricably linked to the perceptions of black people. And those negative perceptions persist.
Through the prism of the real estate market and homeownership in black neighborhoods, this report attempts to address the question: What is the cost of racial bias? This report seeks to understand how much money majority-black communities are losing in the housing market stemming from racial bias, finding that owner-occupied homes in black neighborhoods are undervalued by $48,000 per home on average, amounting to $156 billion in cumulative losses.
Interactive by Alec FriedhoffBy Andre M. Perry, Jonathan Rothwell, David Harshbarger
Homeownership lies at the heart of the American Dream, representing success, opportunity, and wealth. However, for many of its citizens, America deferred that dream.https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2018/11/26/school-leadership-an-untapped-opportunity-to-draw-young-people-of-color-into-teaching/School leadership: An untapped opportunity to draw young people of color into teachinghttp://webfeeds.brookings.edu/~/582329554/0/brookingsrss/topics/raceandethnicity~School-leadership-An-untapped-opportunity-to-draw-young-people-of-color-into-teaching/
Mon, 26 Nov 2018 19:56:25 +0000https://www.brookings.edu/?p=549706

]]>
By Michael Hansen, Diana Quintero

School leaders serve many critical roles in their schools. They split their time between supporting their teacher workforce, communicating with parents, working with the district office, and managing all of the operational processes to keep the school open day to day. A demanding job, school leaders often work nearly 60-hour weeks, filled with challenges ranging from layers of bureaucratic and policy requirements to regular criticism from parents or employees.

Given the importance and visibility of school leaders, it is important to consider the racial and ethnic diversity of this group of educators. Administrators of color bring a number of unique strengths: More frequent exposure to people of color in authoritative positions can replace stereotyping and unconscious biases with acceptance and trust; leaders of color have a distinct advantage when interacting with community members that share their racial or ethnic background; and finally, leaders of color can contribute nuance and perspective for academic programs targeting students of color. As public schools increasingly serve more students of color, states and districts should also make a diverse corpus of principals a priority.

In this installment of our ongoing teacher diversity series, we examine diversity among school leaders. Because leading a classroom is nearly a universal prerequisite to leading a school, we were unsurprised to see large diversity gaps between principals of color and the students they serve, roughly mirroring what we observe among teachers.

We were surprised, however, to learn that opportunities for leadership in schools are significantly stronger for black and Hispanic groups in comparison to leadership opportunities in other industries. In other words, our results imply that opportunities for leadership could be a strength of the teaching profession. These opportunities just might help attract young people of color into it the teaching profession, if we can get the word out.

Diversity among school leadership

Throughout this post, we paint a picture of the pool of public school leaders using data from the 2016 American Community Survey (ACS).[1] The “education administrator” occupation code we use includes public school principals and assistant principals. The following table presents a few summary statistics of the demographic composition of those in this occupation, as well as comparison data against public school teachers and students.

Table 1: Demographic breakdown of administrators, teachers, and students

Race/ethnicity

Administrators

Teachers

Students

White

75.1%

80.1%

50.3%

Black

12.9%

7.7%

14.4%

Hispanic

8.6%

8.3%

25.2%

Other races

3.4%

3.9%

10.0%

Source: Authors’ calculations based on the American Community Survey, 2016; 5-year estimates.

We see a significant degree of racial mismatch between school administrators and the students in their care—just half of students are white, but three-fourths of administrators are. The overrepresentation of whites among administrators roughly mirrors the overrepresentation among teachers (80 percent), a near-universal antecedent to school leadership.

In fact, overrepresentation of white teachers and administrators likely dates back to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education decision. In the decade after the case, due to black schools closing and discrimination against black administrators, an estimated 90 percent of black principals in the South lost their jobs. The simultaneous loss of 38,000 black teachers during that same era meant the loss of a potential next generation of leadership. Encouragingly, though, the representation of black school leaders has rebounded somewhat (12.9 percent), and is now closer to student (14.4 percent) representation than that seen among teachers (7.7 percent); though this is not true of other racial subgroups.

One way to cut this data is to look at the ratio of school leaders to teachers for each demographic group. For reasons that will be clear in just a moment, we create these ratios of leaders to teachers by race and gender. Figure 1 below plots these ratios across racial and ethnic subgroups in the data. Higher values here suggest greater opportunities for advancement into leadership within schools from the teacher ranks. For example, at the high end there are two black male leaders for every nine black male teachers in the survey, resulting in a leader:teacher ratio of 0.22. Incidentally, white women have the lowest ratio, with one administrator for about every 16 teachers.

Taking a step back to look at general patterns in this figure, two points are noteworthy. First, men have higher leader:teacher ratios than women across all racial and ethnic categories. Though it is discouraging to see men advancing more readily into administration than women, particularly in a female-dominated profession as teaching is, it is consistent with prior research evidenceon the topic.

Second, and more surprising to us, is that both black men and women show the highest leader:teacher ratios in their respective gender categories. Both black men and women are more strongly represented among the ranks of school leadership than among the teacher workforce, suggesting particularly strong prospects of upward career advancement for teachers in these subgroups. The other three racial and ethnic groups have roughly equivalent ratios (within gender).

Leadership in schools versus other industries

The leader:teacher ratio above is a proxy for upward advancement within the industry; however, it is possible that other industries offer different, perhaps even better options for advancement into management for some groups that public education does not. The ACS data we use for this analysis also allows us to examine how the demographics of managers in other industries compare against leaders in public schools.

For the following analysis, we examine the demographics of those working in management roles in health care, social services, and postsecondary education. We choose these three industries as they are complementary public-service-oriented fields that, like K-12 schools, typically require a bachelor’s degree and occupational license to enter these fields (and typically a higher degree to move into leadership). Though school leadership certainly takes a unique set of skills, we expect many of these skills to be shared with managers in these complementary industries, and therefore could be viewed as a reasonable approximation of leadership opportunities outside of public schools for those considering a career in public education.

Figure 2 presents a ratio of school leaders to managers in these other fields by race and gender subgroups. Overall, we observe three school leaders in the data for every seven managers in other occupations, or a school leader:manager ratio of 0.3—the fact that this value is less than one is reasonable, as we are pooling leaders in one sector against those in multiple industries.

This 0.3 ratio could be considered a baseline for comparison—higher values among specific subgroups suggest more likely advancement into management in public schools, whereas lower values suggest greater opportunities exist outside of public schools. Specifically, white women as well as men and women of the catch-all “Other” category (predominantly Asians) show values below this 0.3 reference point, suggesting their opportunities to lead are likely higher in these other industries.

On the other hand, both men and women in the black and Hispanic categories (and white men) score well above this 0.3 comparison line. These ratios suggest black and Hispanic individuals who are weighing a career in public schools against these complementary sectors have better upward mobility prospects in public education.

Promote school leadership to attract more young people of color into schools

Summing up our findings, we see ratios of school leaders to teachers that put black teachers at a distinct advantage in moving into school leadership. And when comparing against other industries, both black and Hispanic individuals are more strongly represented among leadership in K-12 public schools compared to management in other complementary industries. Yes, people of color continue to be disproportionately underrepresented in school leadership, though this appears to be more a function of the pipeline into teaching, not into leadership.

We interpret these data as pointing to strong career opportunities for black and Hispanic individuals in public education. Yet, to our knowledge, opportunities for career advancement are not part of the recruitment strategies to attract more nonwhite teachers to the profession. We believe they should be, as it could be a powerful strategy for increasing diversity in two distinct ways.

First, when teaching is advertised as the first step in a career in schools with opportunities for moving up (rather than a flat career trajectory typically assumed), many young people of color may be more attracted to the profession. Second, when incoming teachers are diverse and subsequently ascend into leadership, their influence is multiplied: School leaders of color have their own unique influence on hiring and staffing decisions, often resulting in greater attraction and retention among teachers of color. Leaders of color have been shown to even tap teachers of color to nudge them toward school leadership.

In other words, diverse teachers are the direct inputs into a diverse pool of school leaders. Once they lead, they promote diverse teachers. Rinse and repeat.

Bethany Kirkpatrick and Kimberly Truong contributed to this post.

Footnote

We isolate survey respondents who report working full time as an education administrator. The ACS is designed to be a representative sample of U.S. households, not necessarily the pool of public school administrators. We compared the demographics of school administrators in the ACS to those reported in the 2015-16 National Teacher and Principal Survey—a survey designed to be representative of school principals—and found nearly perfect alignment on race, age, and gender. (Back to top)

]]>
By Michael Hansen, Diana Quintero
School leaders serve many critical roles in their schools. They split their time between supporting their teacher workforce, communicating with parents, working with the district office, and managing all of the operational processes to keep the school open day to day. A demanding job, school leaders often work nearly 60-hour weeks, filled with challenges ranging from layers of bureaucratic and policy requirements to regular criticism from parents or employees.
Given the importance and visibility of school leaders, it is important to consider the racial and ethnic diversity of this group of educators. Administrators of color bring a number of unique strengths: More frequent exposure to people of color in authoritative positions can replace stereotyping and unconscious biases with acceptance and trust; leaders of color have a distinct advantage when interacting with community members that share their racial or ethnic background; and finally, leaders of color can contribute nuance and perspective for academic programs targeting students of color. As public schools increasingly serve more students of color, states and districts should also make a diverse corpus of principals a priority.
In this installment of our ongoing teacher diversity series, we examine diversity among school leaders. Because leading a classroom is nearly a universal prerequisite to leading a school, we were unsurprised to see large diversity gaps between principals of color and the students they serve, roughly mirroring what we observe among teachers.
We were surprised, however, to learn that opportunities for leadership in schools are significantly stronger for black and Hispanic groups in comparison to leadership opportunities in other industries. In other words, our results imply that opportunities for leadership could be a strength of the teaching profession. These opportunities just might help attract young people of color into it the teaching profession, if we can get the word out.
Diversity among school leadership
Throughout this post, we paint a picture of the pool of public school leaders using data from the 2016 American Community Survey (ACS).[1] The “education administrator” occupation code we use includes public school principals and assistant principals. The following table presents a few summary statistics of the demographic composition of those in this occupation, as well as comparison data against public school teachers and students.
Table 1: Demographic breakdown of administrators, teachers, and students
White
75.1%
80.1%
50.3%
Black
12.9%
7.7%
14.4%
Hispanic
8.6%
8.3%
25.2%
Other races
3.4%
3.9%
10.0%
Source: Authors’ calculations based on the American Community Survey, 2016; 5-year estimates.
We see a significant degree of racial mismatch between school administrators and the students in their care—just half of students are white, but three-fourths of administrators are. The overrepresentation of whites among administrators roughly mirrors the overrepresentation among teachers (80 percent), a near-universal antecedent to school leadership.
In fact, overrepresentation of white teachers and administrators likely dates back to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education decision. In the decade after the case, due to black schools closing and discrimination against black administrators, an estimated 90 percent of black principals in the South lost their jobs. The simultaneous loss of 38,000 black teachers during that same era meant the loss of a potential next generation of leadership. Encouragingly, though, the representation of black school leaders has rebounded somewhat (12.9 percent), and is now closer to student (14.4 percent) representation than that seen among teachers (7.7 percent); though this is not true of other racial subgroups.
One way to cut this data is to look at the ratio of school leaders ... By Michael Hansen, Diana Quintero
School leaders serve many critical roles in their schools. They split their time between supporting their teacher workforce, communicating with parents, working with the district office, and managing all of the ... https://www.brookings.edu/events/homeownership-while-black-examining-the-devaluation-of-assets-in-black-neighborhoods/Homeownership while black: Examining the devaluation of assets in black neighborhoodshttp://webfeeds.brookings.edu/~/581137156/0/brookingsrss/topics/raceandethnicity~Homeownership-while-black-Examining-the-devaluation-of-assets-in-black-neighborhoods/
Mon, 19 Nov 2018 16:01:54 +0000https://www.brookings.edu/?post_type=event&p=548744

]]>
According to new research from the Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program and Gallup, in the average U.S. metropolitan area, homes in majority-black neighborhoods are valued at roughly half the homes in neighborhoods with no black residents, amounting to $156 billion in cumulative losses, lower levels of wealth accumulation among black homeowners, and reduced upward economic mobility for black children. The report, “The devaluation of assets in black neighborhoods: The case of residential property,” by Andre Perry, Jonathan Rothwell, and David Harshbarger, finds that this devaluation is caused by racial bias.

On Wednesday, December 5, the Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program and Gallup explored these findings as part of an event, Homeownership while black: Examining the devaluation of assets in black neighborhoods. Following a presentation on the research, two panel discussions discussed possible implications on advocacy efforts and policy reforms.

Following the panel discussions, speakers took questions from the audience.

]]>
Washington, DCpast15440202001544027400America/New_YorkAccording to new research from the Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program and Gallup, in the average U.S. metropolitan area, homes in majority-black neighborhoods are valued at roughly half the homes in neighborhoods with no black residents, amounting to $156 billion in cumulative losses, lower levels of wealth accumulation among black homeowners, and reduced upward economic mobility for black children. The report, “The devaluation of assets in black neighborhoods: The case of residential property,” by Andre Perry, Jonathan Rothwell, and David Harshbarger, finds that this devaluation is caused by racial bias.
On Wednesday, December 5, the Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program and Gallup explored these findings as part of an event, Homeownership while black: Examining the devaluation of assets in black neighborhoods. Following a presentation on the research, two panel discussions discussed possible implications on advocacy efforts and policy reforms.
Following the panel discussions, speakers took questions from the audience.
According to new research from the Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program and Gallup, in the average U.S. metropolitan area, homes in majority-black neighborhoods are valued at roughly half the homes in neighborhoods with no black residents, ... https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2018/11/16/the-fast-lane-amazons-announcement-understanding-the-heartland-and-white-voter-shift-to-democrats/The fast lane – Amazon’s announcement, understanding the Heartland, and white voter shift to Democratshttp://webfeeds.brookings.edu/~/580686838/0/brookingsrss/topics/raceandethnicity~The-fast-lane-%e2%80%93-Amazon%e2%80%99s-announcement-understanding-the-Heartland-and-white-voter-shift-to-Democrats/
Fri, 16 Nov 2018 20:16:56 +0000https://www.brookings.edu/?p=548547

]]>
By Rachel Barker, David Lanham

Amazon makes its choice(s)

After over a year of speculation and countless hours North American cities spent wooing the tech giant, Amazon made its final choice in the HQ2 competition this week: naming Arlington, Va. and New York City as sites for its next headquarters. Alan Berube makes the case that the decision came down to one big factor: talent. Meanwhile, Jenny Schuetz offers tips for how cities that didn’t make the final cut can improve their overall competitiveness and boost prospects for existing residents and businesses, beyond hoping for a rose from a billionaire suitor.

The Heartland: If not Amazon, then what?

Amazon’s choice of two coastal metro areas has added fuel to concerns that tech-driven “superstar” regions are pulling away from the rest of the country, leaving other areas behind. (Amazon did announce that it will locate a smaller operations center in Nashville.) So what can inland leaders do to ensure that they share in the next wave of prosperity? Mark Muro, Jacob Whiton, Robert Maxim, and Ross DeVol inventory the assets of the 19-state Heartland region (spoiler: they’re considerable in many areas, despite the common perception) and flag urgent human capital and innovation investments needed to ensure that the region delivers on its potential. (Another source for strategies and inspiration: Germany, according to John Austin, which is navigating its own industrial transition more successfully than the United States thanks to its markedly more robust approach).

2018 exit polls show greater white support for Democrats

While national coverage of this year’s midterm elections has focused on which offices and chambers are changing hands, William Frey’s analysis of exit polls breaks down the realities of who different demographic groups voted for to propel these leadership changes. Frey finds that younger, female, and more educated white voters fueled Democratic gains, representing shifts in white voter patterns from the 2016 election. Additionally, Frey finds that minorities represented a bigger share of all voters than in any previous midterm election.

The next wave of policy innovation? Look to the states

As Americans get a temporary reprieve from campaign ads and polls following last Tuesday’s election, newly-minted officials across the country are preparing to take office in less than two months. That includes 16 new governors in states including Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, where transition teams are busy translating campaign promises and policy ideas into actionable plans for governing. Amy Liu explains why this is a big moment for city—not just state—leaders and how a more productive state-local partnership could help address the major social and economic challenges facing communities across the Heartland and the rest of the country. Adie Tomer and Joseph Kane, meanwhile, survey infrastructure proposals across states, and find indications that more forceful and expansive state infrastructure policies could take shape in the coming years.

Broadening the talent pool

Confronting the barriers that prevent young adults from disadvantaged backgrounds from accessing quality jobs matters both for boosting opportunity and helping regions prosper in the knowledge economy. So what can local leaders do? In new research, Martha Ross, Nicole Bateman, and researchers from Child Trends, a nonprofit focused on improving outcomes for children, unpack factors for success and offer practical recommendations—including placing a stronger emphasis on work-based learning, improving post-secondary completion, and expanding the role of positive, supportive relationships to drive better outcomes.

Responding to Pittsburgh’s tragedy with lessons of the past on inclusion

In response to the tragic events in Pittsburgh that claimed 11 lives in the deadliest attack on the Jewish community in U.S. history, Andre Perry discusses in an op-ed for the New York Times the lessons he took from growing up in a diverse Pittsburgh community of black and Jewish Americans. In the piece, Perry writes how places like Pittsburgh’s Tree of Life synagogue are powerful, but won’t be protected “as long as Trump and his followers continue to stoke the white nationalist’s greatest fear: inclusion.”

]]>
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Twitter-cover-2018-no-logo-01.png?w=320By Rachel Barker, David Lanham
Amazon makes its choice(s)
After over a year of speculation and countless hours North American cities spent wooing the tech giant, Amazon made its final choice in the HQ2 competition this week: naming Arlington, Va. and New York City as sites for its next headquarters. Alan Berube makes the case that the decision came down to one big factor: talent. Meanwhile, Jenny Schuetz offers tips for how cities that didn’t make the final cut can improve their overall competitiveness and boost prospects for existing residents and businesses, beyond hoping for a rose from a billionaire suitor.
The Heartland: If not Amazon, then what?
Amazon’s choice of two coastal metro areas has added fuel to concerns that tech-driven “superstar” regions are pulling away from the rest of the country, leaving other areas behind. (Amazon did announce that it will locate a smaller operations center in Nashville.) So what can inland leaders do to ensure that they share in the next wave of prosperity? Mark Muro, Jacob Whiton, Robert Maxim, and Ross DeVol inventory the assets of the 19-state Heartland region (spoiler: they’re considerable in many areas, despite the common perception) and flag urgent human capital and innovation investments needed to ensure that the region delivers on its potential. (Another source for strategies and inspiration: Germany, according to John Austin, which is navigating its own industrial transition more successfully than the United States thanks to its markedly more robust approach).
2018 exit polls show greater white support for Democrats
While national coverage of this year’s midterm elections has focused on which offices and chambers are changing hands, William Frey’s analysis of exit polls breaks down the realities of who different demographic groups voted for to propel these leadership changes. Frey finds that younger, female, and more educated white voters fueled Democratic gains, representing shifts in white voter patterns from the 2016 election. Additionally, Frey finds that minorities represented a bigger share of all voters than in any previous midterm election.
The next wave of policy innovation? Look to the states
As Americans get a temporary reprieve from campaign ads and polls following last Tuesday’s election, newly-minted officials across the country are preparing to take office in less than two months. That includes 16 new governors in states including Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, where transition teams are busy translating campaign promises and policy ideas into actionable plans for governing. Amy Liu explains why this is a big moment for city—not just state—leaders and how a more productive state-local partnership could help address the major social and economic challenges facing communities across the Heartland and the rest of the country. Adie Tomer and Joseph Kane, meanwhile, survey infrastructure proposals across states, and find indications that more forceful and expansive state infrastructure policies could take shape in the coming years.
Broadening the talent pool
Confronting the barriers that prevent young adults from disadvantaged backgrounds from accessing quality jobs matters both for boosting opportunity and helping regions prosper in the knowledge economy. So what can local leaders do? In new research, Martha Ross, Nicole Bateman, and researchers from Child Trends, a nonprofit focused on improving outcomes for children, unpack factors for success and offer practical recommendations—including placing a stronger emphasis on work-based learning, improving post-secondary completion, and expanding the role of positive, supportive relationships to drive better outcomes.
Responding to Pittsburgh’s tragedy with lessons of the past on inclusion
In response to the tragic events in Pittsburgh that claimed 11 lives in the deadliest attack on the Jewish ... By Rachel Barker, David Lanham
Amazon makes its choice(s)
After over a year of speculation and countless hours North American cities spent wooing the tech giant, Amazon made its final choice in the HQ2 competition this week: naming Arlington, Va.https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2018/11/08/2018-exit-polls-show-greater-white-support-for-democrats/2018 exit polls show greater white support for Democratshttp://webfeeds.brookings.edu/~/579154940/0/brookingsrss/topics/raceandethnicity~exit-polls-show-greater-white-support-for-Democrats/
Thu, 08 Nov 2018 18:18:22 +0000https://www.brookings.edu/?p=547074

]]>
By William H. Frey

Tuesday’s midterm House elections saw Democrats fare much better than they did in the 2016 presidential contest. Two years ago, Hillary Clinton topped Donald Trump by 4.6 percent in the popular vote, while this week, Democratic House candidates received 9 percent more votes than their Republican counterparts.

The 2018 exit polls indicate that a considerable share of Democratic gains came from shifts in white voting patterns, even as Democrats retained strong support from racial minorities. Moreover, in key Midwest statewide elections, Democrats lost fewer white working-class male votes while retaining support among white female college graduate voters.

Whites still voted Republican, but less so than in 2016

Race continues to represent a primary fault line in national elections. Whites overall continue to favor Republicans and minorities—especially blacks—continue to favor Democrats. This fault line is increasingly important in midterm elections as the nonwhite share of eligible voters grows, even though minorities are less likely than whites to turn out. The 2018 exit polls show that minorities—including blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and other nonwhite groups—constituted an all-time high, 28 percent, of midterm voters, and fully 38 percent of young adult (age 18 to 29) voters (Figure 1).

Among those who voted, partisan differences by race remained in 2018, but shrank from their 2016 levels. Comparing the national vote for 2018 House of Representative members with the 2016 presidential vote, the white Republican vote advantage decreased by half, from a D-R margin (percent voting Democratic minus percent voting Republican) of -20 in 2016 to -10 in 2018. In contrast, positive D-R margins (favoring Democrats) remained the same or increased for non-white groups (Figure 2).

In Tuesday’s elections, whites aged 18 to 29 registered a positive D-R voting margin of 13, and whites aged 30 to 44 flipped from a Republican vote advantage in 2016 to an even Democratic–Republican split (D-R margin of 0) in 2018 (Figure 3). Many have noted that stronger young adult turnout provided increased support for Democrats, but it is especially noteworthy that white young adults voted more strongly Democratic than in previous elections.

Perhaps even more important for Democrats on Tuesday were gender and education patterns in white voting. As political analyst Ronald Brownstein noted, white college educated women are a likely long-term Democratic-leaning voting bloc, in contrast to other white groups, especially white men without a college education. The latter group, in particular, arguably provided decisive support for Donald Trump in the 2016 election.

In contrast to that election, the 2018 exit polls show markedly reduced Republican support among white males without college degrees (from a -48 D-R margin in 2016 to -34 in 2018), and increased support for Democrats among white college educated women (from a +7 D-R margin in 2016 to +20 in 2018) (Figure 4).

Shifts in white voting patterns from 2016 showed up in battleground states

These national patterns of lower white voter support for Republicans in the 2018 midterms are also evident in selected senatorial and gubernatorial elections in states mostly won by Donald Trump in 2016, but where Tuesday’s election results were much closer (download Table A).

Common white voting shifts occurred in four Midwest industrial states, including gubernatorial elections in Michigan (won by Democrat Gretchen Whitmer) and Wisconsin (won by Democrat Tony Evers), along with senatorial elections in Ohio (won by Democrat Sherrod Brown) and Missouri (won by Republican Josh Hawley). In each of these states, strong Republican margins among white men without a college degree put the states in Trump’s column in 2016. While still substantial, those margins were considerably narrower in 2018, by at least 20 percentage points in each case. In Ohio, Missouri, and Michigan, Democratic support among white college educated women rose sharply, and in Ohio and Missouri shifted overall from Republican to Democratic support. (In Wisconsin, this group showed strong Democratic support in both elections.) Finally, in each of these states, minority Democratic support, while still strong, slipped slightly from 2016 levels.

Somewhat different patterns emerged in Sun Belt states with close outcomes. These include gubernatorial elections in Florida (won by Republican Ron DeSantis) and Georgia (still undecided between Democrat Stacey Abrams and Republican Brian Kemp), as well as senatorial elections in Nevada (won by Democrat Jacky Rosen) and Texas (won by Republican Ted Cruz). Florida’s shifts since 2016 come closest to those observed in the Midwest states, featuring markedly reduced Republican support among white men without a college degree (a nearly 30 percentage-point shift in D-R margin) and a dramatic flip from Republican to Democratic support among white college-educated women. Nevada, in contrast, showed modest Republican gains in most categories counting whites, except white college educated women who shifted from Republican to Democratic support.

Both Texas and Georgia, like several other southern states, show strong white Republican margins in both elections, but different shift patterns. In Texas, the Cruz-O’Rourke senatorial election resulted in reduced Republican advantages in three white categories, the greatest for women. In Georgia’s Abrams-Kemp gubernatorial contest, Republican advantages narrowed the most for college educated men and women, though no category of whites showed a Democratic advantage. Strong black turnout and support for Democrats vied with still-strong white Republican support to keep this election close.

For the nation as a whole and for key state midterm elections, reduced white Republican support, especially among white working class men, and Democratic gains among white college educated women, provided a stark contrast to 2016 election results. While racial minorities are essential Democratic voting blocs as the nation diversifies, these key shifts among segments of the white electorate will be important to watch moving forward.

]]>
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/2018.11.8-metro-billfrey-postmidterm2018-related2.jpg?w=231By William H. Frey
Tuesday’s midterm House elections saw Democrats fare much better than they did in the 2016 presidential contest. Two years ago, Hillary Clinton topped Donald Trump by 4.6 percent in the popular vote, while this week, Democratic House candidates received 9 percent more votes than their Republican counterparts.
The 2018 exit polls indicate that a considerable share of Democratic gains came from shifts in white voting patterns, even as Democrats retained strong support from racial minorities. Moreover, in key Midwest statewide elections, Democrats lost fewer white working-class male votes while retaining support among white female college graduate voters.
Whites still voted Republican, but less so than in 2016
Race continues to represent a primary fault line in national elections. Whites overall continue to favor Republicans and minorities—especially blacks—continue to favor Democrats. This fault line is increasingly important in midterm elections as the nonwhite share of eligible voters grows, even though minorities are less likely than whites to turn out. The 2018 exit polls show that minorities—including blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and other nonwhite groups—constituted an all-time high, 28 percent, of midterm voters, and fully 38 percent of young adult (age 18 to 29) voters (Figure 1).
Among those who voted, partisan differences by race remained in 2018, but shrank from their 2016 levels. Comparing the national vote for 2018 House of Representative members with the 2016 presidential vote, the white Republican vote advantage decreased by half, from a D-R margin (percent voting Democratic minus percent voting Republican) of -20 in 2016 to -10 in 2018. In contrast, positive D-R margins (favoring Democrats) remained the same or increased for non-white groups (Figure 2).
Younger, female, and educated white voters helped Democrats on Tuesday
White voters are not a monolithic bloc, however, and the 2018 exit polls indicate shifts in partisan support by age, education, and gender that help explain Democratic gains.
Nationally, the total population under age 45 has favored Democrats in midterm House and presidential elections since 2010. Much of this is due to the larger minority presence among younger voters, because white young adults often vote Republican. This was the case in both the 2012 and 2016 presidential elections, but changed in the 2018 midterms.
In Tuesday’s elections, whites aged 18 to 29 registered a positive D-R voting margin of 13, and whites aged 30 to 44 flipped from a Republican vote advantage in 2016 to an even Democratic–Republican split (D-R margin of 0) in 2018 (Figure 3). Many have noted that stronger young adult turnout provided increased support for Democrats, but it is especially noteworthy that white young adults voted more strongly Democratic than in previous elections.
Perhaps even more important for Democrats on Tuesday were gender and education patterns in white voting. As political analyst Ronald Brownstein noted, white college educated women are a likely long-term Democratic-leaning voting bloc, in contrast to other white groups, especially white men without a college education. The latter group, in particular, arguably provided decisive support for Donald Trump in the 2016 election.
In contrast to that election, the 2018 exit polls show markedly reduced Republican support among white males without college degrees (from a -48 D-R margin in 2016 to -34 in 2018), and increased support for Democrats among white college educated women (from a +7 D-R margin in 2016 to +20 in 2018) (Figure 4).
Shifts in white voting patterns from 2016 showed up in battleground states
These national patterns of lower white voter support for Republicans in the 2018 midterms are also evident in selected senatorial and gubernatorial elections in states mostly won by Donald Trump in 2016, but where Tuesday’s ... By William H. Frey